Defining God in Theistic Arguments

[2PhiloVoid]

In short, you're more interested in the understanding of what christianity means by "god" than attempting to arrive at a purely rational construction of "god".

Is that about right?

Yes, something like that ... otherwise, we're just slicing smoke.

 

[Percivale]

Hey Percivale,
That's sort of what I'm saying, so I agree with the first portion of your question, but the whole concept of "building up my own definition one step at a time" seems to me to be conceptually problematic. If not through reference to the Bible, from whence do we obtain substantive ideas about the Abrahamic God? Nowhere else that I know of other than the Bible and its Jewish stewards. So, building up my definition, or even abstracting a bunch of OMNI-attributes for scrutiny, does not seem to me to present viable (or accurate) options.

I wouldn't juxtapose these options as dichotomous in nature; they don't have to be assumed to come at us in an EITHER/OR fashion. However, I think we should keep in mind that there is no preset nature as to the quality or amount of evidence one expects or has to have--much of this will be relative for each individual. So, sure, we can look for evidence, we can search our hearts out for whatever kinds and quantities may be available, but if we are really paying attention to the epistemological indicators in the Bible, we're probably not going to be overwhelmed with an avalanche of incoming data that fills in every nook and cranny of possible inquiry.

2PhiloVoid

I believe there are things we can deduce about God from reason and science (though not with complete certainty) in other words I believe in natural revelation. Knowing what the Biblical God is like is only interesting if we have reason to believe he is the true originator of the universe. Do you look for evidence whether that is so?
True, faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive; it's normal for each to go halfway in causing someone to believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe there are things we can deduce about God from reason and science (though not with complete certainty) in other words I believe in natural revelation.

To some small extent, we can glean a few patterns here and there in nature that may seem to imply some kind of "behind the scenes" order; but then, as you've said, these patterns aren't certain. And that's where the trouble lies. Paul says that God has "revealed" aspects of His nature to all people, and that all of us are without excuse (Romans Ch. 1), but then, .... if these things are not phenomena of which we can be certain, just derivative aspects of what we'd likely today call the Anthropological Argument, then Atheists will point back to you and me and say, "Nah!!! We do have an excuse since all this stuff you're talking about isn't certain in the least, and we aren't going to trade for mere appearances." Moreover, even as Christians, we don't really know what the specifics referents were to which Paul was alluding ... other than traces of claims to Divine Creation which we find in Genesis, some Psalms, and a few bits and pieces strewn throughout the Prophets.

Knowing what the Biblical God is like is only interesting if we have reason to believe he is the true originator of the universe. Do you look for evidence whether that is so?

The problem with this statement, Percivale, is that the term "interesting" is highly subjective and much more aesthetic than epistemological. In fact, some people might think that the most interesting, relevant, and important reason to believe is seen in whether or not Jesus was in fact real and actually rose again from the dead. Without these truths about Jesus figured in, contextualizing Him for us as a risen Savior, and if all we can do is harp about how much we surmise that God in fact Created all things, then we'd basically be left with what you posited in your first post above--"something closer" ....

True, faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive; it's normal for each to go halfway in causing someone to believe.

Sure, truth, faith and evidence aren't mutually exclusive, but that's still not enough. The Scriptures teach that God Himself has to "reach down" into our hearts and assist us to believe ... and that's not going to happen by merely pondering the imponderables.

With all of that said, I do appreciate the fact that you're making an effort, Percivale.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Davian]

Actually, no I don't mean that; I haven't gotten nearly that specific.

You got specific when you said "...closer to the Christian concept of God".

Aren't all the qualities I mentioned in either definition pretty universally held by theists, or at least Christians?

I have no idea. It surprises me when I find two that agree on something.

And does anyone ever, when logically defending any belief, not work from more basic facts to the conclusion that they already hold to be true?

Sure. But they would be using flawed logic.

If you catch me slipping in qualities without evidence, call me out, but don't assume ahead of time that I am going to do that. This thread is not really an argument for the existence of God anyway, just a clarification of what I think the definitions should always be in such arguments.

Let's go back to the OP then.

You said, "a being". The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms that depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "being" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "being"). Define what you mean by 'being'.

You said "...must have always existed". You now have an infinite regress problem; just how long did this 'god-thing' wait until it started creating?

You said "entirely immaterial". What is it actually made of?

 

[Davian]

Yes, something like that ... otherwise, we're just slicing smoke.

As opposed to 'blowing smoke'.

 

[Davian]

... causing someone to believe.

Are you arguing for belief, or for an accurate description of reality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As opposed to 'blowing smoke'.

You catch on quick, Davian.

 

[Soyeong]

Well, for the first 20 mins or so he describes two types of causal relationships (he doesn't call them that...but that's what they are) linear and hierarchical. Even if I ignore the fact that there's really no difference between the two...the linear just seems more immediate of the two...and

His main argument takes about 30 minutes, so I suggest that you at least watch 10 more minutes, then he switches to arguing for the attributes that this cause would have. It seems to me that there is a difference between a causal series, such someone who begets someone, who begets someone else, and a causal series where a hand moves a stick, which moves a rock, which moves a leaf. In the first series, it can continue even if the first member of the series were to die, whereas without the hand, the second series would not exist as a causal series. All of the members in the first series don't derive their causal power from earlier members of the series, while all of the members derive their causal power from the first member in the second series.

I ignore the problems with these foundational premises (the idea that we observe change...his example of coffee cooling is deceptive, yes we can observe the change of thermal energy but the net effect is constant, we know the amount of energy in the universe doesn't change) he still runs into a rather serious problem with his hierarchical causal relationship. He claims it requires an actor while the linear relationships don't. The fact is, neither do.

The net amount of energy in the universe doesn't need to change in order to observe change. The first series can exist without the first member, but the second series requires the first member or else it wouldn't exist as a series, so if you have an instance of the second series, then you can know that it has a first member.

If I were to use his examples, I'd point out that the air conditioner doesn't just cool the coffee...it effects multiple changes. Why then, couldn't these "hierarchical" causal relationships simply be results of linear casualties? Upon examination...we can see they are (which is why I said they aren't really any different). The coffee rests upon the table, which rests upon the floor, which rests upon the foundation, which rests upon the ground, which was formed by gravity which is a linear result of a chain which began with the big bang (which is the point in the chain which is the furthest back we can see). Gravity isn't part of a hierarchical relationship...it's a linear one...and as he pointed out early in the video, linear relationships don't require any actors.

So even allowing his rather sloppily constructed premises, he still ends up back at square one.

Of course the air condition cools more than just the coffee, he's just using it as an example to illustrate what such a series would look like. He was not first member being first in relation to time, but in that it has an inherent or built-in causal power while the other secondary causes have only derivative causal power. The hierarchal series is actually more fundamental to reality because every series of the linear sort presupposes a series of the hierarchal sort, which we can see once he talks about what keeps the coffee in existence at every moment in which it exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

His main argument takes about 30 minutes, so I suggest that you at least watch 10 more minutes, then he switches to arguing for the attributes that this cause would have. It seems to me that there is a difference between a causal series, such someone who begets someone, who begets someone else, and a causal series where a hand moves a stick, which moves a rock, which moves a leaf. In the first series, it can continue even if the first member of the series were to die, whereas without the hand, the second series would not exist as a causal series. All of the members in the first series don't derive their causal power from earlier members of the series, while all of the members derive their causal power from the first member in the second series.

I understand that it appears there's a significant difference between the two series...but it's more perspective than reality. If you look at an example of the first series, whatever point you look at it from could just as easily be considered a "first member" without which nothing in the rest of the series would happen.

The net amount of energy in the universe doesn't need to change in order to observe change. The first series can exist without the first member, but the second series requires the first member or else it wouldn't exist as a series, so if you have an instance of the second series, then you can know that it has a first member.

I only brought up the point about the conservation of energy to emphasize that it's a matter of perspective. Has the energy in the coffee changed? Yes. Has the energy present in the universe changed? No. You can't necessarily take an observation about the individual circumstances (the coffee getting cooler) and apply it to something larger like the universe. What's true of one instance isn't necessarily true of the other.

As for first members...my point is that it could simply be an event from a first series chain (which as the speaker says, doesn't require any first member). Causes and effects aren't singular. The air conditioning in the room doesn't only affect coffee...just as gravity doesn't only affect the coffee...it affects every other factor in that chain as well.

Of course the air condition cools more than just the coffee, he's just using it as an example to illustrate what such a series would look like. He was not first member being first in relation to time, but in that it has an inherent or built-in causal power while the other secondary causes have only derivative causal power. The hierarchal series is actually more fundamental to reality because every series of the linear sort presupposes a series of the hierarchal sort, which we can see once he talks about what keeps the coffee in existence at every moment in which it exists.

You seem to understand that causes aren't singular in their affects...so what part of my refutation don't you understand?

 

[Percivale]

You got specific when you said "...closer to the Christian concept of God".

I have no idea. It surprises me when I find two that agree on something.

Well let me inform you then. Most Christians do believe that God is powerful, intelligent, conscious, Eternal, the creator, and interested in humanity's growth.

Are you saying that anytime someone tries to argue in favor of a belief that they already hold, they are using flawed logic?

Consider the difference between what is conceivable and what is verifiable. It is thoroughly conceivable for a being to exist without having the things you mention; take sentient robots for instance, they are all over in science fiction. Since, then, the kind of body does not limit what we can imagine as a being, it is also possible to conceive of beings with any variety of body plans.

Actually, I said that precisely to avoid the infinite regress problem. It is unavoidable that something must have always existed; you could ask with equal irrelevance how long the singularity waited before it exploded in the Big Bang. What is your preferred explanation for the universe's origin?

That question is entirely immaterial to the discussion It doesn't matter what it may or may not be made of.

 

[Davian]

Well let me inform you then. Most Christians do believe that God is powerful, intelligent, conscious, Eternal, the creator, and interested in humanity's growth.

And I have met those self-identified Christians that believe otherwise, on all of those points.

Are you saying that anytime someone tries to argue in favor of a belief that they already hold, they are using flawed logic?

No. My comment was directed at the context where it is suggested that the evidence led one to a conclusion, when in reality the conclusion was already firmly held, evidence or no.

Consider the difference between what is conceivable and what is verifiable. It is thoroughly conceivable for a being to exist without having the things you mention; take sentient robots for instance, they are all over in science fiction. Since, then, the kind of body does not limit what we can imagine as a being,

That it can be imaged has no bearing on it existing in reality.

it is also possible to conceive of beings with any variety of body plans.

Describe the 'body plan' that your "God" might have. For example, what did it breath prior to the existence of oxygen?

Actually, I said that precisely to avoid the infinite regress problem.

It just replaces one infinite regress problem with another.

It is unavoidable that something must have always existed; you could ask with equal irrelevance how long the singularity waited before it exploded in the Big Bang.

Equally, once we observe astrophysicists enter politics and lobby to have hypotheses from modern cosmology carved into multi-ton granite monuments and placed in state judicial buildings.

What is your preferred explanation for the universe's origin?

"I don't know."

That question is entirely immaterial to the discussion It doesn't matter what it may or may not be made of.

You brought it up, as if it were of significance.

 

[Percivale]

And I have met those self-identified Christians that believe otherwise, on all of those points.

There's always exceptions. I'm still pretty sure most Christians do believe all those points.

No. My comment was directed at the context where it is suggested that the evidence led one to a conclusion, when in reality the conclusion was already firmly held, evidence or no.

Yes, if I claimed that it was this evidence that convinced me of Christianity, and it wasn't, that would be wrong. It is the case, however, that the evidence I've alluded to has played a role in my keeping my Christian beliefs. I have changed certain beliefs because the evidence was against them.

That it can be imaged has no bearing on it existing in reality.

But it does have bearing on whether it can be defined. For instance we have a pretty definite definition of what King Arthur's Round Table was like, even though it did not exist in reality.

Describe the 'body plan' that your "God" might have. For example, what did it breath prior to the existence of oxygen?

I don't know, but it would be something more like the multiverse that some have hypothesized. If you can have no opinion about how the universe originated, it's only fair that I don't have to know every detail of what God is like.

You brought it up, as if it were of significance.

I brought it up to say that it was not of significance.

It just replaces one infinite regress problem with another.

Unless you can present some possible origin theory that does not have an infinite regress problem, that is not a point against theism. But I don't think theism has that problem. An eternal God needs to cause, so there is not an infinite regress of causes, and if he is changeless there need not be an infinite regress of activity. Whenever God created something that does go through a sequence of events, time began at that point. Before that point, no events had taken place, so there was not infinite sequence. I don't know if an infinite sequence is logically impossible; I suspect that most of the logical contradictions that come up in infinite sequences do so because people treat infinity like a finite number. It's just a bit beyond our minds' capabilities to understand that. If that is so, then if every universe ends with a big crunch that causes another big bang, perhaps that could have gone on from infinity past. But I find that claim just as extraordinary as theism.

Equally, once we observe astrophysicists enter politics and lobby to have hypotheses from modern cosmology carved into multi-ton granite monuments and placed in state judicial buildings.

Well, religion is not based much on Thomistic theistic arguments, but on revelation (which fits in my second category of evidences in the OP). I happen to know from experience that people can receive messages from God with info they couldn't have known naturally, so it's not incredible to me that he would have spoken to the biblical prophets. Atheism is a rational belief (or lack thereof) for those who have not experienced any miracles, but not for those who have (unless they are known to be susceptible to hallucination or there is a reasonable natural explanation for what they've experienced).

 

[juvenissun]

When arguing for the existence of God, one should understand what kind of God one is giving evidence for. Generally these arguments prove only a few qualities that the being they prove must have.
I believe that in arguments from effect to cause, such as the cosmological and design arguments, the definition of God that is being used is simply: 'a being that has always existed, who intentionally caused the universe to come into existence.' The being must have always existed or it would itself need a cause, and it must have significant intelligence and power to have intentionally created the universe. Whether such a being is also morally good, or entirely immaterial, or infinite in any quality besides time it has existed, is not addressed in these arguments. If someone slips these qualities in without evidence, it is right to call that out, but until they do, to keep with the topic only to discuss the evidence for the minimal type of God defined above.

A second category of theistic arguments uses a different definition of God, due to the different type of evidence under examination. These are the arguments from human experience of the supernatural. Miracles, revelation, near-death-experiences, and such, provide evidence for this definition of God: 'A superhuman being who is good, powerful, worthy of worship, and interested in the growth (in character) of humanity.' The exact qualities depend on which experiences one is presenting, but they tend to be these primarily.

By itself the first category of arguments would only support a deistic god, while the second category, depending on the specifics, might support a variety of types of gods. When you take both together, you get something closer to the Christian concept of God.

How do we define a thing? For example, God.
It must include the following format:

God is ...

So, there is no need for useless argument, but just give the content in the definition:
God is ...
God is ...
God has ...
God is ...
etc.

That is how should God be "DEFINED".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...it's only fair that I don't have to know every detail of what God is like.

This is true; we don't even know every detail of what our loved ones are like - but we can give a pretty good description all the same...

 

[Davian]

There's always exceptions. I'm still pretty sure most Christians do believe all those points.

God, cafeteria style. Just pick as choose as you like.

Yes, if I claimed that it was this evidence that convinced me of Christianity, and it wasn't, that would be wrong.

I seemed that in your OP that you wanted to define a generic "god", but then quickly - in the same post - alluded to aiming for the Christian "god", hence my comment about you starting from a particular conclusion. Not so much as wrong, but more like intellectually dishonest.

It is the case, however, that the evidence I've alluded to has played a role in my keeping my Christian beliefs. I have changed certain beliefs because the evidence was against them.

But it does have bearing on whether it can be defined. For instance we have a pretty definite definition of what King Arthur's Round Table was like, even though it did not exist in reality.

I do not see how this analogy applies. This is not like imaging a "table" that may have existed in a mythical setting of around 1500 years ago, but imaging a [mythical] "table" that existed prior to the current instantiation of the cosmos.

I don't know, but it would be something more like the multiverse that some have hypothesized.

Really? is it supported by the equations that the astrophysicists use in such matters? Show your work.

If you can have no opinion about how the universe originated,

It would be fallacious to create a [false] dichotomy in this situation. I am not claiming to be right, and I certainly need no claim of my own to critique your claims.

it's only fair that I don't have to know every detail of what God is like.

What details have you provided, beyond suppositions and special pleading? Or telling me what it isn't?

I brought it up to say that it was not of significance.

Yet your god concept still suffers from the infinite regress problem. Are we to simply sweep it under the rug?

Unless you can present some possible origin theory that does not have an infinite regress problem,

Again with the false dichotomy, but if you like:

It is not an issue for the astrophysicists that contemplate these issues. Physicist Sean Carroll debated WLC back in 2014, and later blogged:

"In contrast, I wanted to talk about a model developed by Anthony Aguirre and Stephen Gratton. They have a very simple and physically transparent model that (unlike my theory with Chen) imposes a low-entropy boundary condition at a mid-universe “bounce.” It’s a straightforward example of a perfectly well-defined theory that is clearly eternal, one that doesn’t have a beginning, and does so without invoking any hand-waving about quantum gravity. I challenged Craig to explain why this wasn’t a sensible example of an eternal universe, one that was in perfect accord with the BGV theorem, but he didn’t respond. It wasn’t until the talks on the following day that Craig’s teammate James Sinclair admitted that it seemed like a perfectly good model to him.

But again — my main point was not to push this or that specific model, but to argue that it’s the models that matter, not some general theorem in a regime we don’t pretend to understand. So I listed a bunch of plausible-looking eternal cosmologies. The point is not that all or some of these models is perfect; it’s that they’re eternal. So we should judge them on their merits, rather than claiming to have general arguments that there are no such things. (It’s as if WLC has a powerful general theorem against heavier-than-air flying machines, while airplanes keep buzzing overhead.)"

that is not a point against theism. But I don't think theism has that problem.

Theism, or your particular religion? Keep in mind, the mutually exclusive nature of religions means that only one religion can be right (or none), so that theism, by its very nature, is certainly almost all wrong. And it could be all wrong.

An eternal God needs to cause, so there is not an infinite regress of causes, and if he is changeless there need not be an infinite regress of activity.

Does your "God" ever make a decision? Can't do that if you are changeless. Sounds more like a bug suspended in amber.

Whenever God created something that does go through a sequence of events, time began at that point. Before that point, no events had taken place, so there was not infinite sequence. I don't know if an infinite sequence is logically impossible; I suspect that most of the logical contradictions that come up in infinite sequences do so because people treat infinity like a finite number. It's just a bit beyond our minds' capabilities to understand that. If that is so, then if every universe ends with a big crunch that causes another big bang, perhaps that could have gone on from infinity past.

I am under no illusion that the conditions that surround the instantiation of the cosmos should "make sense" in a manner that could be explained in the context of a internet discussion forum. I suspect that the years of education that the astrophysicists go through may be a requirement prior to being able to mount a credible critique of their work. Are you an astrophysicist?

But I find that claim just as extraordinary as theism.

I do not see this as a valid comparison. Are the astrophysicists claiming that the forces involved in the instantiation of the cosmos police your thoughts, and care about what you wear on your head, and with whom you have sex?

Well, religion is not based much on Thomistic theistic arguments, but on revelation (which fits in my second category of evidences in the OP).

By that, do you also include "making stuff up in your head"?

I happen to know from experience that people can receive messages from God with info they couldn't have known naturally, so it's not incredible to me that he would have spoken to the biblical prophets.

Tell me exactly how you know this, that it could not just be a product of their imagination.

Atheism is a rational belief (or lack thereof)

I disagree. I do not consider belief to be conscious decision, based on my understanding of the modern theory of mind and neuroscience.

for those who have not experienced any miracles, but not for those who have (unless they are known to be susceptible to hallucination or there is a reasonable natural explanation for what they've experienced).

Provide an example of a "miracle" that cannot be explained as a hoax, illusion, exaggeration, myth, or outright fraud.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about G*d, the unspeakable.

 

[Percivale]

God, cafeteria style. Just pick as choose as you like.

I seemed that in your OP that you wanted to define a generic "god", but then quickly - in the same post - alluded to aiming for the Christian "god", hence my comment about you starting from a particular conclusion. Not so much as wrong, but more like intellectually dishonest.

I do not see how this analogy applies. This is not like imaging a "table" that may have existed in a mythical setting of around 1500 years ago, but imaging a [mythical] "table" that existed prior to the current instantiation of the cosmos.

Really? is it supported by the equations that the astrophysicists use in such matters? Show your work.

It would be fallacious to create a [false] dichotomy in this situation. I am not claiming to be right, and I certainly need no claim of my own to critique your claims.

What details have you provided, beyond suppositions and special pleading? Or telling me what it isn't?

Yet your god concept still suffers from the infinite regress problem. Are we to simply sweep it under the rug?

Again with the false dichotomy, but if you like:

It is not an issue for the astrophysicists that contemplate these issues. Physicist Sean Carroll debated WLC back in 2014, and later blogged:

"In contrast, I wanted to talk about a model developed by Anthony Aguirre and Stephen Gratton. They have a very simple and physically transparent model that (unlike my theory with Chen) imposes a low-entropy boundary condition at a mid-universe “bounce.” It’s a straightforward example of a perfectly well-defined theory that is clearly eternal, one that doesn’t have a beginning, and does so without invoking any hand-waving about quantum gravity. I challenged Craig to explain why this wasn’t a sensible example of an eternal universe, one that was in perfect accord with the BGV theorem, but he didn’t respond. It wasn’t until the talks on the following day that Craig’s teammate James Sinclair admitted that it seemed like a perfectly good model to him.

But again — my main point was not to push this or that specific model, but to argue that it’s the models that matter, not some general theorem in a regime we don’t pretend to understand. So I listed a bunch of plausible-looking eternal cosmologies. The point is not that all or some of these models is perfect; it’s that they’re eternal. So we should judge them on their merits, rather than claiming to have general arguments that there are no such things. (It’s as if WLC has a powerful general theorem against heavier-than-air flying machines, while airplanes keep buzzing overhead.)"

Theism, or your particular religion? Keep in mind, the mutually exclusive nature of religions means that only one religion can be right (or none), so that theism, by its very nature, is certainly almost all wrong. And it could be all wrong.

Does your "God" ever make a decision? Can't do that if you are changeless. Sounds more like a bug suspended in amber.

I am under no illusion that the conditions that surround the instantiation of the cosmos should "make sense" in a manner that could be explained in the context of a internet discussion forum. I suspect that the years of education that the astrophysicists go through may be a requirement prior to being able to mount a credible critique of their work. Are you an astrophysicist?

I do not see this as a valid comparison. Are the astrophysicists claiming that the forces involved in the instantiation of the cosmos police your thoughts, and care about what you wear on your head, and with whom you have sex?

By that, do you also include "making stuff up in your head"?

Tell me exactly how you know this, that it could not just be a product of their imagination.

I disagree. I do not consider belief to be conscious decision, based on my understanding of the modern theory of mind and neuroscience.

Provide an example of a "miracle" that cannot be explained as a hoax, illusion, exaggeration, myth, or outright fraud.

You appear inconsistent in charging the concept of God with an infinite regress problem, while presenting eternal cosmologies as viable, when they have the same issue. I don't know if an infinite succession is really a problem, but if it is for God it is for those cosmologies, and if not for those, then not for God either. I've heard Craig's argument, but wouldn't use it myself, since I don't know if the problem is with the nature of infinity itself or just with our understanding of it.

As for miracles, twice people known to have a prophetic gift, when praying for me, told me specific things about me, in one case the very words I had been thinking a short time before. One had never met me before, the other was a recent acquaintance. The probability of their guessing those things was low enough that I find it more reasonable to believe they gained that knowledge supernaturally. I also have had several friends say they were healed supernaturally. Such stories are quite common, and while naturally there are some hoaxes, and they tend to be the most sensational and publicized, if there were never real miracles it would be unlikely the hoaxes would have ever got started. Nobody counterfeits fake money; a counterfeit suggests the existence of a genuine version. If atheism were true one would expect everyone would be atheists, but they have never even been a majority.

Clearly you don't like the idea of a god existing. There are some god concepts out there I find reprehensible too. If you could choose any kind of god and it would then exist, what would you choose?

 

[Davian]

What about G*d, the unspeakable.

Or, the undetectable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If atheism were true one would expect everyone would be atheists, but they have never even been a majority.

I don't know why you think this. I'm sure you've heard of the appeal to popularity fallacy (if you haven't, it's a logical fallacy that you just committed...you should look into it). Is it because you think that people tend to gravitate towards the truth?

If that's the case...I think you give people too much credit. People like being lied to...especially if it's a comforting or reassuring lie. People even tell these lies to themselves (how many times in your life have you heard someone say during a time of great stress or tragedy, "everything is going to be ok"?). These lies are a very natural coping mechanism...repeated often enough we start to believe them and whatever was causing stress or uncertainty begins to fade away.

So what does this have to do with religion? IMO all very successful religions are built around some sort of flattering lies. Look at Judaism...the central belief/core of Judaism is the idea that they are god's "chosen" people. The idea that god favors the jewish people over all others pervades nearly every aspect of their religion. God saves them from brutal tyrannical empires, smites the armies of their enemies, and holds them in higher esteem than any other people. Is it so difficult to imagine the ancient jewish people before they had a centralized religion hearing someone preaching this belief and thinking "Hey, this sounds way better than the stuff that other guy was saying about how we should worship that golden calf...let's listen to what he has to say." Is it really any mystery why Judaism has lasted so long? It's got to be pretty hard to convert someone who thinks they are one of god's favorites.

When you look at nearly any prevalent successful religion you see similarities. Christianity took the popular aspects of judaism and added a whole new group of flatteries. They added redemption through faith in Jesus....they added love to the jewish god by claiming that he appeared on earth to die for your sins. They tell you that god has a plan for you and your life, that he cares about you and wants a personal relationship with you, that he's created a place where you get to spend eternity basking in his love, that he has guidelines for how you should behave...but he'll forgive you when you mess up, and perhaps most importantly he listens to and answers your prayers. On top of all that, the picture christianity paints of non-christians is somewhere between pure evil and pure stupidity.

Are you starting to see how these beliefs could become extremely popular without any hint of truth to them? Atheism doesn't flatter the atheist at all...it enough make any empty platitudes, it doesn't offer any blind reassurances, it doesn't provide any answers to life's difficult questions. The atheist typically believes this life is all he has...an uncomfortable truth for most people. The atheist has to find his own meaning to life...it's not something to be found in some ancient scriptures...that's an uncertainty that many people find stressful and would rather have meaning given to them than have to find it themselves. The atheist has to decide what is morally good and bad all by themselves...something that many people would find stressful because of its uncertainty. The atheist has to admit that he/she doesn't know all the answers to life's great mysteries (the origin of the universe, life, what happens after death, etc) a truth that isn't nearly as satisfying as telling everyone that you know all the answers.

Hopefully, you're starting to understand what I'm saying...the reasons why atheism isn't as popular as religion are rather obvious. The only thing that truth has to do with the matter is that truth isn't always a pretty thing...sometimes it's quite ugly and unlikable. We atheists just tend to believe that just because truth can be ugly, it isn't a reason to lie to yourself or others.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Davian said "undetectable"....

It is established in the hadîth that Gabriel asked the Prophet (peace be upon him): “Tell me about excellence in faith (ihsân).”

He replied: “It is to worship Allah as though you see Him, and though you do not see Him, you know that He sees you.” [Sahîh al Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]link

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal ( a famous scholar) said, “Whatever you imagine in your mind, God is different from that.”

“And of everything We have created pairs.” [Al-Qur’aan 51:49]

Meaining that for every muslim there may be a scientist who looks on at the same universe, but comes to an opposite conclusion?

Davian, maybe a Chrisitan faith (with species of bread and wine) or a Hindu one (with murtis or "sacred idols", or avatars) would be what you expect the truth to be???